FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

You can still attack more than one territory per turn? If so, it would still be faster by tenfold.

yes, the idea is that each country can only attack once. but if you are allowed to attack from several different countries during your turn.

Ditocoaf wrote:Woah... I just realized that I've completely misread this idea. I thought that it meant that you couldn't attack with a territ you just conquered... but upon re-reading, it seems that all this would do is make it so no one country can attack more than once. Which is kind of pointless, because you don't often attack multiple targets from the same country in any given turn -- you zig-zag around advancing armies to the territ you just conquered.

so my "yes" vote changes to a "no", as this would not change the game very much at all.

....it seems you misread it when you re-read it lol. or maybe it wasn't clear...either way, the idea is that each country can only attack once AND the armies that advanced upon conquering a country cannot attack during said turn.

Apparently I am a douche as well. I wanted to have one more thing specified. If I attack, but do not conquer country B from country A, can I still attack from country A to country C? Also, this would needlessly extend games. I just finished a game on Doodle in two turns by running through five countries of one player and six of another. If this were implemented I would have needed more than 11 turns to make the same move. Extending a Doodle game 9 extra turns seems pointless. What would happen if this were on World 2.1?

To all those complaining that this would "needlessly extend games": nobody would force you to play this, just like nobody forces you to play "no cards" games. Sure, "no cards" games take a lot longer, but some people find them fun, myself included. I'm not concerned with getting as many points as fast as possible, and so longer games aren't only accpetable, I occasionally prefer them.

The strategy changes this would require would be very worth it, in my opinion. This is something I really want to see.

But... could the poll options be changed? Its never a good idea to insult the voters, and I have a feeling that this will make the idea look bad, and even encourage people to vote "no" in spite.

Man, things get buried really fast in this forum. This has to be one of the better suggestions I've seen in a while, so I'd like to bring it to the front.

However, could I propose a change? I'd like the idea to be simplified as just:Newly conquered territories cannot attack.It's simpler to explain (and therefore more likely to be accepted as a game option), and it's not too different from what you have currently. Conquering multiple times from the same territory is rare enough that this doesn't really effect the game much. And in fact, because it's so rare, I think it would be interesting to see if people do it more once the "new territory" limitation is put in place. The rule would still stop people from snaking around to conquer an entire continent in a turn, and if they want to expand in multiple directions, they'll have to spread out their force from a single territory.

hmm.....that was one of the things i was toying with while thinking of this idea. i wasn't sure which one would be better....but i suppose that would be easier to explain. I'll edit the suggestion....again lol

I'm all for this idea. It adds an extra level of strategy, for those looking for more challenge. (the randomness of dice, just isn't enough strategy sometimes)Again to reiterate Ditocoaf's point, it would be an option to play, not a requirement, so don't worry it will slow things down too much, as you don't have to play.

I like the idea of a territory being able to attack multiple countries, but conquered terits not being able to attack further.

I would like to add a suggestion from same time risk, where you can do surge attacks. In same time risk, you could plan a move so if you take a territory and move x number of troops into, you can have the option(once per turn) of having all the remaining troops in the newly conquered terit continue on into another territory. You don't get control of the dice on the second half of the surge, so you would have to commit all troops from the newly conquered village in a battle to the death in the surge attack.

A attacks B, wins, moves 10 troops from A into B, B then attacks C till death or victory.(the number of troops moved from A to B would need to be decided before any dice are rolled.)

If this surge was properly limited (once per turn, or perhaps with cards{maybe cards get you a surge instead of troops?}) it would add an additional layer of strategy and speed up the process as you can take 2 in one turn.

kerntheconkerer wrote:Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

Do you mean Richard Hand's idea, or the OP? Because the suggestion of this thread seems pretty simple to me... conquered territs can't attack that turn. Much less game-changing than, say, the Assassin variation.

Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

lancehoch wrote:Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

kerntheconkerer wrote:Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

i don't really understand how it's too far fetched....this is a just a new game type that will instigate new strategies. a truly far fetched idea, but one that i support, is that of "zombie neutral territories" (which has been passed and is under work as we speak)

n00blet wrote:i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

n00blet wrote:i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

Which makes it a little more realistic, actually. If a castle can bombard the surrounding area, it's a long, hard trek to get near it. It's just as hard for everybody.

People say the same about no-cards games, yet lots of other people still play them.

And perhaps this wouldn't work as well on Feudal War... well, most settings don't work as well with every map.

i don't understand how people think it would grind a game to a halt. it wouldn't grind games to a halt any more than having escalating cards on a huge map. once people get into their positions and the cards get high enough, its a stalemate. no one wants to attack. THAT is a game grinding to halt.adjacent attacks would just slow the play down and force people to be strategic in different ways from any other variation of risk on this website.

Bones2484 wrote:

n00blet wrote:i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

bombardment is not some sort of all-powerful attack. take into account that the castle only gets +5 on it every turn, and with the other players deployment, if you have them boxed into their realm only +6 more, at most. all it would require is just more careful decision-making when considering breaking into someone's realm. if someone builds up a big enough army, they would be able to take down the castle within 3 or 4 turns, depending on the size of the realm.